This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. Note that The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content included in the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of the content contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.

No abstract

Nonfinancial defined contribution (NDC) schemes offer governments desirable properties in terms of efficiency, fairness, and financial sustainability and an opportunity to deflect the blame for pension cuts. Yet adoptions of NDC schemes largely ground to a halt and several countries retreated from NDC implementation after legislation. Lack of support from powerful international actors is partly to blame, as is the perceived rigidity of NDC in reducing room for policy maneuver. Correct implementation requires substantial administrative capacity. Less demanding automatic stabilizing mechanisms undercut the appeal of NDC in the European Union. Thus, while being an important option for policy makers and a benchmark against which to measure alternative reforms, NDC is unlikely to become the dominant pension design choice anytime soon.

Nonfinancial defined contribution (NDC) schemes offer governments desirable properties in terms of efficiency, fairness, and financial sustainability and an opportunity to deflect the blame for pension cuts. Yet adoptions of NDC schemes largely ground to a halt and several countries retreated from NDC implementation after legislation. Lack of support from powerful international actors is partly to blame, as is the perceived rigidity of NDC in reducing room for policy maneuver. Correct implementation requires substantial administrative capacity. Less demanding automatic stabilizing mechanisms undercut the appeal of NDC in the European Union. Thus, while being an important option for policy makers and a benchmark against which to measure alternative reforms, NDC is unlikely to become the dominant pension design choice anytime soon. ABSTRACTNonfinancial defined contribution (NDC) schemes offer governments desirable properties in terms of efficiency, fairness, and financial sustainability and an opportunity to deflect the blame for pension cuts. Yet adoptions of NDC schemes largely ground to a halt and several countries retreated from NDC implementation after legislation. Lack of support from powerful international actors is partly to blame, as is the perceived rigidity of NDC in reducing room for policy maneuver. Correct implementation requires substantial administrative capacity. Less demanding automatic stabilizing mechanisms undercut the appeal of NDC in the European Union. Thus, while being an important option for policy makers and a benchmark against which to measure alternative reforms, NDC is unlikely to become the dominant pension design choice anytime soon.

No abstract